Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 81

SUPPLEMENT to Motion for Approval of Class Notice and to Direct LegalZoom to Provide Class Contact Information. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 63 ) (Clement, Matthew)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-04018-CV-C-NKL

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE
AND TO DIRECT LEGALZOOM TO PROVIDE CLASS CONTACT INFORMATION
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and provide the following supplement to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Class Notice and to Direct LegalZoom to Provide Class
Contact Information.
In the briefing related to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Class Notice, Defendant
LegalZoom suggested to the Court that the class period should be cut off on the date the
Certification Order was entered. LegalZoom argued that the reason for this cutoff date was
“[w]hile LegalZoom does not necessarily maintain that its post-certification transactions with
Missouri customers have been different from certified transactions, it does argue that there is no
evidence in the record later transactions are not different.” See, Document #69, pp. 6-7. In
response, Plaintiffs noted that corporate representatives of LegalZoom testified the post
certification transactions were similar, but that the deposition transcripts were not available at the
time of the filing of the Reply. See, Document 79, p. 6 (ft. nt. 3). Attached is testimony from
Brian Liu, one of LegalZoom’s founders and its current Chairman of the Board of Directors,
confirming that the method and process of creating the legal documents at issue in this case has

1

not changed since the founding of LegalZoom – let alone since class certification in this case.
See, Liu Depo. 97:22 – 99:4 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As such, Plaintiffs reiterate their
position that the class period should extend beyond the date of the Certification Order as more
specifically set forth in their Reply at Document #79, pp 6-8.

Respectfully submitted;
___/s/ Matthew A. Clement__________________
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and
Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573 659-4460
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 314-863-5711
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-6291
[e-mail]

Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 15, 2011, I served this document upon the following via this
Court’s ECF system:
Party

Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Ste. 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
816.374.3200, 816.374.3300 (fax)
John Michael Clear
Michael Biggers
James Wyrsch
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square – Ste. 3600
211 N. Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
314.250.2000, 314.259.2020 (fax)

___/s/Matthew A. Clement___________

3